A recent editorial by Norman (2019) in this journal asked whether “[t]wo heads are better than one”. Following a light-hearted and insightful deliberation on medical training specifically and problem solving in general, either individually or in groups, Norman concluded that “two (independent) heads are better than one (group of two heads)” (2019). We applaud the author for questioning a widely accepted belief and for fostering a discussion on the pearls and pitfalls of collaboration in medicine. Drawing on a review of the medical and psychological literature, we would, however, argue that his conclusion (a) leaves important evidence out of consideration, (b) results from a conceptual oversimplification, and (c) addresses the wrong question. In the following, we highlight relevant research on the merits of one versus more heads in the context of medical diagnoses, present a theoretical conception of the problem, and conclude that the question of whether or not to collaborate should be replaced by that of when and why to collaborate, aggregate or work in isolation. We conclude with specific suggestions for further research in this area, illustrating our point with an example from research into group leadership.

中文翻译：

---

两个头脑是否比一个更好是一个错误的问题（尽管有时它们是）

Norman (2019) 最近在该杂志上发表的一篇社论询问“[t] 两个头是否比一个更好”。在对医疗培训和一般问题解决方案进行了轻松而有见地的审议后，无论是单独还是分组，诺曼得出结论：“两个（独立的）头比一个（两个头的小组）好”（2019）。我们赞扬作者质疑广泛接受的信念并促进对医学合作的珍珠和陷阱的讨论。然而，通过对医学和心理学文献的回顾，我们会争辩说他的结论 (a) 没有考虑重要的证据，(b) 概念过于简单化的结果，以及 (c) 解决了错误的问题。在下面的，我们在医学诊断的背景下强调了一个或多个头的优点的相关研究，提出了该问题的理论概念，并得出结论，是否合作的问题应该被何时以及为什么合作的问题所取代，聚合或孤立工作。最后，我们提出了对该领域进一步研究的具体建议，并通过一个团队领导研究的例子来说明我们的观点。